JUDGMENT : Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under :­ The petitioner claims that he was engaged as a Daily Wage Surveyor w.e.f. 01.01.1994. As per him, though the muster roll of Surveyor was issued to him, yet the work of Junior Engineer was extracted from him by the Department. Further, according to the petitioner, he was entitled for being regularized against the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 01.01.2002. However, this was not done and his services were regularized vide order dated 06.07.2007, which action of the Department is totally against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench this Court in Gouri Dutt & Ors. Versus State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366 as well as other decisions rendered by this Court, reference whereof is given in Para 6.7 of the amended plaint. It is in this background that the petition has been filed with the prayer that direction be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner against the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 01.01.2002 on the basis of law laid down by this Court in Gouri Dutt & Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon this Court in Gouri Dutt & Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra) has vehemently argued that the act of the respondent­Department of not following the said judgment in the course of regularizing the service of the petitioner is totally arbitrary. Learned counsel further submitted that as the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the pronouncement of law made by this Court in Gouri Dutt & Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra), therefore, the act of the respondent-State of regularizing the service of the petitioner as a junior engineer w.e.f. 06.07.2007 be declared as bad in law and the services of the petitioner be ordered to be regularized as Junior Engineer, w.e.f. 01.01.2007, with all consequential benefits. No other point was urged. 3. The petition is opposed by the State, inter alia, on the ground that the reliance being placed upon the judgment of Gouri Dutt & Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra) by the petitioner is totally mis­misconceived. No other point was urged. 3. The petition is opposed by the State, inter alia, on the ground that the reliance being placed upon the judgment of Gouri Dutt & Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra) by the petitioner is totally mis­misconceived. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that it is not as if the petitioner was initially engaged as a Surveyor and thereafter as a Junior Engineer on daily wage basis, but while regularizing his services, his services were regularized as a Surveyor without calling upon him to opt as to whether he intended to be regularized as a Surveyor or Junior Engineer. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that here is a case where services of the petitioners were regularized as a Junior Engineer only and that too as per his seniority as determined vis­a­vis his status when he was initially engaged on muster roll basis as Junior Engineer. On these basis, it has been prayed that the present petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 5. The contentions of the petitioner have already been recorded by me hereinabove. A perusal of the reply which has been filed to the amended petition by the State demonstrates that the petitioner initially joined the respondent­Department as a daily wage Surveyor (Class­III) w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and he worked as such upto 25.08.1997. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was possessing the diploma in Civil Engineering, he was issued muster roll of Junior Engineer (Civil) Class­III w.e.f. 26.10.1997. Thereafter, he served the Department on daily wage basis as such. The services of the petitioner were regularized as Junior Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 06.07.2007, in terms of the regularization policy of the respondent­State, dated 09.06.2006, which provided for prospective regularization post completion of eight years of service with cut of date as 31.03.2004. It is further mentioned in the reply that the petitioner accepted his regularization as a Junior Engineer and joined his duties as such w.e.f. 11.07.2007, without any protest. 6. Now, in the backdrop of the averment as they are contained in the petition as also in the reply, when one peruses the law laid down by this Court in Gouri Dutt & Ors. 6. Now, in the backdrop of the averment as they are contained in the petition as also in the reply, when one peruses the law laid down by this Court in Gouri Dutt & Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra)), the Court concurs with the arguments made by learned Additional Advocate General that the reliance being placed upon the petitioner upon the said judgment is totally misconceived. Here the case of both the parties is that though the petitioner was initially engaged as a Surveyor in the year 1994, but taking into consideration the qualification possessed by the petitioner, he was issued the muster roll as a Junior Engineer w.e.f. October, 1997 and he continued to serve as such till his services were regularized as a Junior Engineer in the year 2007. Therefore, it is not a case where the services of the petitioner were regularized against a lower post as compared to his right of regularization against a higher post. 7. In Gouri Dutt & Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra), Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Para­20 thereof has been pleased to hold as under:­ “20. After considering all the pros and cons and keeping in view the fact that various anomalous situations may arise we are of the considered view that when an employee completes 10 years of continuous service combined in two scales, an option should be given to the employee to either accept work charge status in the lower scale or he may continue to work on daily rated basis in the higher scale and claim work charge status in the higher scale of completion of 10 years of continuous service in the said scale. In the examples given above employee (A) may prayer to accept work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2001 even in the lower scale of beldar because otherwise he may have to wait for 9 years before he is granted work charge status. On the other hand, employee (B) in the second example may prefer to delay the grant of work charge status by one year so that he can get work charge status in the higher scale. We feel that in each case the choice should be left to the employee. On the other hand, employee (B) in the second example may prefer to delay the grant of work charge status by one year so that he can get work charge status in the higher scale. We feel that in each case the choice should be left to the employee. However, if the employee on being given a change to exercise his option does not convey his option within 30 days, he shall be granted work charge status in the lower scale by combining the service rendered in both the scales. This answers the fourth question.” 8. As mentioned hereinabove, the facts of this case are not akin to the fact situation as stands envisaged by the Hon’ble Division Bench while delivering the judgment in Gouri Dutt & Ors. Versus State of H.P. (supra). 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if that is so, then it was incumbent upon the State to have had offered regularization to the petitioner against the post of Surveyor upon completion of eight years of service as Surveyor and Junior Engineer. The Court is of the considered view that this contention of the petitioner cannot be considered by the Court at this stage, because it was for the petitioner to have had raised this issue at the relevant point of time, which admittedly was not done. However, otherwise also the relief being prayed for by the petitioner that his services be ordered to be regularized as a Junior Engineer w.e.f. from the year 2002, cannot be granted to him. This is for the reason that it is own case of the petitioner that as in the year 1994 he was given muster roll of a Surveyor and muster roll of a Junior Engineer was given to him only for the month of October, 1999 onwards. That being the case, in the year 2002, neither the petitioner was fulfilling the criteria of ten years of service as a Junior Engineer as contemplated in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, nor he was completing eight years of service in terms of the subsequent policy of regularization which was brought into force by the State Government from time to time. 10. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.